Assign a specific photo album to a Skylight device so it displays the chosen album on the frame. Use device id and album id to change what photos appear.
Set which photo album a device displays.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Device id (from skylight_list_devices). | |
| frameId | No | ||
| current_album_id | Yes | Album id to display on this device. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.7.1Input schema / properties / current_album_id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / current_album_id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]Input schema / properties / id / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "number"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / id / typeAdded value: +[
+ "string",
+ "number"
+]v0.4.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation, so safety is partly covered. However the description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether the previous album assignment is replaced, whether the album must exist, or what side effects occur on the device.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a mutation tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema, an undocumented frameId, and only a terse one-liner, the description omits prerequisites and post-conditions an agent needs. It is not complete enough to invoke confidently without inspecting the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%: id and current_album_id carry inline descriptions, but frameId is undocumented. The description contributes no parameter meaning at all, leaving the frameId parameter entirely unexplained and not compensating for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (set) and resource (photo album on a device), so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like skylight_update_album or skylight_add_to_album, but the device-album pairing is distinctive enough to identify it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives. It never tells the agent to first fetch a device id via skylight_list_devices or an album id via skylight_list_albums, which the schema hints are needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.